My advice? Don't watch for the plot
Dec. 4th, 2012 03:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
next_to_normalOr, "how I learned to stop worrying and love serialized TV."
So... major things happened on Homeland this week, which I won't spoil, but the episode - and, frankly, the entire season - is pretty much bonkers. In a good way, for some viewers (including me, but then again, some of my favorite shows ever are completely ridiculous), but this latest episode has prompted a LOT of critical discussion over the issue of plausibility and just how much sense we expect our TV shows to make. It's especially interesting to me, as I've been reading The Revolution Was Televised and consequently revisiting my Lost feels - which bore a striking resemblance to the conversation that's now happening around Homeland.
(The rest is behind a cut for length. I've tried to keep it as spoiler-free as possible, although all the links I include have spoilers for various shows.)
I've edited that quote for spoilers, but you can read the full post here (massive Homeland spoilers abound, as well as mention of a notorious Friday Night Lights plotline).
I think the above quote neatly encapsulates a shift I've noticed in my television viewing. I used to think I wanted plot-driven shows. I mean, I love plot. I love sinking my teeth into a good, intricately plotted story with surprising yet inevitable twists and turns. And I LOVE when you get to the end and it all makes sense. And that works great for books and movies, because they are finite and self-containedunless the author decides to make it a franchise and then all bets are off. But when I watch TV, I'm mostly drawn to character-driven series, and I've developed an uncanny ability to accept plots that require huge suspensions of disbelief with a shrug and a "WOO THAT SHIT IS BANANAS," because the character work is so good.
If you'll recall, that is exactly how I tried to approach Lost. Having had the benefit of seeing everyone's OMGWTFPOLARBEAR reactions throughout the show's run, when I finally sat down to watch (after the series finale had aired), I knew not to focus on the plot. I knew that was a good way to drive myself nuts. I knew not to expect all the answers, and so I focused much more on the characters, and you know what? It was a damn satisfying show. It's strange, then, that all of the Lost copycats have tried to duplicate the overcomplicated mystery plot but failed to produce characters in whom the audience wants to invest their time and affection.
That's not to say plot is irrelevant, or that we shouldn't be bothered when things are implausible or nonsensical. Like I said, I'm a huge fan of plot, and it's awesome when a story manages to get both right at the same time. But the thing that's tough about television (and what Lindelof and Cuse ran headfirst into, as discussed in Revolution) is that, barring the rare exception, TV is open-ended. How can you possibly craft a tightly-plotted story when you don't even know how long you're going to have to tell it? How can you expect it not to be full of plot holes when you're making it up as you go along? It's why I'm a huge fan of outlines when writing - but that only works with a finite story, when you have a clearly defined structure and an endpoint to work toward. But when you write open-endedly, as in television, you end up with two alternatives. Either you blow through your plot at breakneck speed, the way Homeland has done (and The Vampire Diaries, and who ever thought I'd put those two things in the same sentence?), and it gets more and more ridiculous because you need to continue to escalate the tension, until you write yourself into a corner - or you stall, spinning your wheels and stretching out the plot with pointless diversions, frustrating viewers who want answers. Neither one is really satisfying, but short of having limited-run series (which most networks seem unlikely to attempt, because it defies their current business model), there's really not a whole lot to be done.
So if plot is subject to the whims of networks and series renewals, how do you anchor a show in plausibility? Characters. As another review (lots of spoilers here, too) points out, "Homeland‘s chief narrative enigma isn’t about terrorist plots, CIA moles, or political maneuvers. It’s about how do Carrie and Brody really feel about each other." (Completely unrelated to my point, but I also love the parallel that post draws between Carrie's emotional attachment to Brody and our emotional attachment to TV characters - since, after all, Carrie began this relationship by watching Brody on surveillance.) Homeland's creators would agree, as this episode's writer said in an interview (yep, spoilers here, too), "The core of all this is -- it's about [Carrie] and Brody. It's about this demented love story."
Interestingly, Alyssa Rosenberg today questions whether the overly complicated serialized plotting actually gets in the way of emotional storytelling. (Spoilers for Homeland, Scandal, and The West Wing, although if you haven't seen TWW yet, I don't know what's wrong with you.) The need to shock viewers and escalate the stakes often ultimately results in sloppy writing, where character development is sacrificed for plot and important details are hand-waved away. I'd actually disagree with her suggestion of Downton Abbey as a counterpoint to this trend - if anything, Downton has proven itself more than willing to go to the "shocking death of a major character" well far too often simply for the sake of creating ~drama. Even Breaking Bad and Mad Men - two shows that, when they began, were trademarked by their unhurried, deliberate pacing and their use of minimalist plots to drive character growth - have both amped up the spectacle in later seasons. Maybe we do need to collectively chill out, stop upping the ante, and just enjoy spending time with these fascinating fictional people.
But if you're really, really concerned with the plot on Homeland, never fear. The New Yorker has you covered: a completely insane theory that explains everything!
So... major things happened on Homeland this week, which I won't spoil, but the episode - and, frankly, the entire season - is pretty much bonkers. In a good way, for some viewers (including me, but then again, some of my favorite shows ever are completely ridiculous), but this latest episode has prompted a LOT of critical discussion over the issue of plausibility and just how much sense we expect our TV shows to make. It's especially interesting to me, as I've been reading The Revolution Was Televised and consequently revisiting my Lost feels - which bore a striking resemblance to the conversation that's now happening around Homeland.
(The rest is behind a cut for length. I've tried to keep it as spoiler-free as possible, although all the links I include have spoilers for various shows.)
Watching TV for plot is a fool’s game, and it’s just going to end with you being disappointed. But watching TV for long-term character arcs can be very rewarding, particularly if you’re in the hands of writers who keep an eye on the characters in a way that keeps them more or less consistent. It’s all but impossible to blow through plot at the level Homeland does without running out of room [...] but it is possible to keep the big character moments coming, and the show has done an excellent job of that this season.
What’s more, I find character stuff more emotionally satisfying, generally. [...]
I’m not trying to say watching TV for plot is wrong. It certainly isn’t, and there are certainly shows that have been able to deftly weave rocket-paced plots that nonetheless provide room for character introspection in the moment. But at the same time, every story contains its plausibility concerns, and if you poke at them hard enough (or come at them from the right point-of-view), you’ll find them.
I've edited that quote for spoilers, but you can read the full post here (massive Homeland spoilers abound, as well as mention of a notorious Friday Night Lights plotline).
I think the above quote neatly encapsulates a shift I've noticed in my television viewing. I used to think I wanted plot-driven shows. I mean, I love plot. I love sinking my teeth into a good, intricately plotted story with surprising yet inevitable twists and turns. And I LOVE when you get to the end and it all makes sense. And that works great for books and movies, because they are finite and self-contained
If you'll recall, that is exactly how I tried to approach Lost. Having had the benefit of seeing everyone's OMGWTFPOLARBEAR reactions throughout the show's run, when I finally sat down to watch (after the series finale had aired), I knew not to focus on the plot. I knew that was a good way to drive myself nuts. I knew not to expect all the answers, and so I focused much more on the characters, and you know what? It was a damn satisfying show. It's strange, then, that all of the Lost copycats have tried to duplicate the overcomplicated mystery plot but failed to produce characters in whom the audience wants to invest their time and affection.
That's not to say plot is irrelevant, or that we shouldn't be bothered when things are implausible or nonsensical. Like I said, I'm a huge fan of plot, and it's awesome when a story manages to get both right at the same time. But the thing that's tough about television (and what Lindelof and Cuse ran headfirst into, as discussed in Revolution) is that, barring the rare exception, TV is open-ended. How can you possibly craft a tightly-plotted story when you don't even know how long you're going to have to tell it? How can you expect it not to be full of plot holes when you're making it up as you go along? It's why I'm a huge fan of outlines when writing - but that only works with a finite story, when you have a clearly defined structure and an endpoint to work toward. But when you write open-endedly, as in television, you end up with two alternatives. Either you blow through your plot at breakneck speed, the way Homeland has done (and The Vampire Diaries, and who ever thought I'd put those two things in the same sentence?), and it gets more and more ridiculous because you need to continue to escalate the tension, until you write yourself into a corner - or you stall, spinning your wheels and stretching out the plot with pointless diversions, frustrating viewers who want answers. Neither one is really satisfying, but short of having limited-run series (which most networks seem unlikely to attempt, because it defies their current business model), there's really not a whole lot to be done.
So if plot is subject to the whims of networks and series renewals, how do you anchor a show in plausibility? Characters. As another review (lots of spoilers here, too) points out, "Homeland‘s chief narrative enigma isn’t about terrorist plots, CIA moles, or political maneuvers. It’s about how do Carrie and Brody really feel about each other." (Completely unrelated to my point, but I also love the parallel that post draws between Carrie's emotional attachment to Brody and our emotional attachment to TV characters - since, after all, Carrie began this relationship by watching Brody on surveillance.) Homeland's creators would agree, as this episode's writer said in an interview (yep, spoilers here, too), "The core of all this is -- it's about [Carrie] and Brody. It's about this demented love story."
Interestingly, Alyssa Rosenberg today questions whether the overly complicated serialized plotting actually gets in the way of emotional storytelling. (Spoilers for Homeland, Scandal, and The West Wing, although if you haven't seen TWW yet, I don't know what's wrong with you.) The need to shock viewers and escalate the stakes often ultimately results in sloppy writing, where character development is sacrificed for plot and important details are hand-waved away. I'd actually disagree with her suggestion of Downton Abbey as a counterpoint to this trend - if anything, Downton has proven itself more than willing to go to the "shocking death of a major character" well far too often simply for the sake of creating ~drama. Even Breaking Bad and Mad Men - two shows that, when they began, were trademarked by their unhurried, deliberate pacing and their use of minimalist plots to drive character growth - have both amped up the spectacle in later seasons. Maybe we do need to collectively chill out, stop upping the ante, and just enjoy spending time with these fascinating fictional people.
But if you're really, really concerned with the plot on Homeland, never fear. The New Yorker has you covered: a completely insane theory that explains everything!
no subject
Date: Dec. 5th, 2012 04:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Dec. 5th, 2012 04:43 am (UTC)The jump to the future is the point when I quit watching, not because the plot was bad (although I found the war with the Observers to be less compelling than the conflict between the two universes), but because I realized I just didn't care about these characters anymore. The versions I'd found most interesting had been obliterated.
I can get invested in characters even if I don't care about the plot. It's nearly impossible to get invested in a plot when I don't care about the characters.
no subject
Date: Dec. 7th, 2012 05:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Dec. 7th, 2012 09:46 pm (UTC)